Author
Topic: Skeletons (Read 14111 times)

When I look at the history of the Catholic Church, I am forced to admit some very ugly truths about our past. If I remove all of those ugly bits (selling indulgences, inquisition, bad popes, etc.), what remains looks a great deal like the EOC.

When I look at the history of the Catholic Church, I am forced to admit some very ugly truths about our past. If I remove all of those ugly bits (selling indulgences, inquisition, bad popes, etc.), what remains looks a great deal like the EOC.

For what I assume is your extent of "ugly bits"? No, it does not wind up looking a great deal like the EOC.

What do you mean by saying "Church"? I highly doubt it that St. John Chrysostom, for example, would approve of it. There were definitely some priests who agreed on wars, but that does not lead the Church astray.

At least, the Orthodox Church never declared a skeleton officially, as the RCC had done with the Inquisition, for example.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2010, 08:41:20 AM by GammaRay »

Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

What do you mean by saying "Church"? I highly doubt it that St. John Chrysostom, for example, would approve of it. There were definitely some priests who agreed on wars, but that does not lead the Church astray.

At least, the Orthodox Church never declared a skeleton officially, as the RCC had done with the Inquisition, for example.

I guess I meant the leadership of the Orthodox churches at the time--the leadership of a jurisidiction.

By willingly becoming a member of the ekklesia, we admit that we are in need of a healing salve; we admit that we constantly 'miss the mark'. As such, though the gates of hell shall not prevail, still, we all 'miss the mark' from time to time. The ekklesia if full of sinners who routinely, as they work out their salvation, hurt each other and themselves. This is the reason we have the Mystery of Repentance and why we constantly pray for ourselves and one another. Take it from a guy who rarely sees the cow patty 'til he steps in it, we got our share of problems.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

I notice the lack of coverups by higher ranking clergy (although I may not be looking hard enough). At least this is a good sign.

Also, if you want to say that the Byzantine persecutions against the Oriental Orthodox shouldn't count as a black mark on the leaders of the Church at the time, then the same should be said for the Spanish Inquisition, which was largely an effort of the Spanish crown, under the mask of religion, to homogenize Spain and milk the Conversos for what they were worth. I don't care if John Paul II apologized for it; it was hardly the Vatican's fault (which, in fact, unsuccessfully attempted to halt it on several occasions).

I suppose the persecution of Old Believers might be seen as a blemish as well, although few people proclaim Nikon to be any kind of saint anyway.

I suppose the persecution of Old Believers might be seen as a blemish as well, although few people proclaim Nikon to be any kind of saint anyway.

Would you mind giving a brief primer on the "persecution of Old Believers."

In the mid 1600s, Patriarch Nikon attempted to conform the Russian church with the other Orthodox churches. The primary things he changed were several phrases in the DL, as well as the sign one makes with their fingers while crossing themselves. Some Orthodox saw this as an affront to what they saw as true Orthodoxy (they saw the other churches as apostate or at least under a certain degree of error at this time), and refused the changes. Nikon responded by enforcing these changes at the point of the sword, with many Old Believers being martyred as a result. Nikon overall is notorious for basically attempting to mimic the Pope in how much authority he held (which caused Peter the Great to go the other direction and make the czar the de facto head of the Russian church and temporarily abolishing the patriarchy).

Theologically, I believe that my Church is absolutely correct. But we're not nice as humans. Not as much as we used to.What is even harder is the fact that the good news never comes out. Not only because no one is interested in nice stories, but only in harsh gossips that go against the Church, but also because Christ has asked us to do our good works in secrecy.

You know that the Church is a hospital. There are many people in it. Do not doubt the hospital's doctors and do not be harsh towards their ways. But you are free to consider as stupid the ways of some patients, for they refuse to receive the appropriate treatment, even though it was them who decided to enter the hospital.

If you wish to be a part of a group that did not have any "skeletons" you either have to make a new one or suicide. We have committed crimes as Orthodox, as Christians, as a religion, as a humanity. You can't undo the past, but just help so that it won't happen again.

After all, since the very beginning our Church (be that BC or AD) was full of corruption. It is no surprise that it still exists today.

Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Theologically, I believe that my Church is absolutely correct. But we're not nice as humans. Not as much as we used to.What is even harder is the fact that the good news never comes out. Not only because no one is interested in nice stories, but only in harsh gossips that go against the Church, but also because Christ has asked us to do our good works in secrecy.

You know that the Church is a hospital. There are many people in it. Do not doubt the hospital's doctors and do not be harsh towards their ways. But you are free to consider as stupid the ways of some patients, for they refuse to receive the appropriate treatment, even though it was them who decided to enter the hospital.

If you wish to be a part of a group that did not have any "skeletons" you either have to make a new one or suicide. We have committed crimes as Orthodox, as Christians, as a religion, as a humanity. You can't undo the past, but just help so that it won't happen again.

After all, since the very beginning our Church (be that BC or AD) was full of corruption. It is no surprise that it still exists today.

Thanks for your response, GammaRay. I'd obviously love to belong to a church without any corruption, but I know that's not possible. We're all human--all sinners. The reason I asked this question is because I have been debating a Protestant. He is trying to disprove the Catholic Churches claim to authority by attacking its past sins. I am trying to build an argument that shows authority need not be without sin to retain its authority or its orthodoxy.

I wanted to juxtapose his view of orthodoxy against that which is shared by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Now I realize we're all different, and each claims to be truly orthodox, but all three share many truths (e.g., bishops, priests, deacons, the Real Presence, Theotokos, sacraments/mysteries, etc.) not found in Protestantism and all three have held these truths since the beginning.

I wanted to juxtapose his view of orthodoxy against that which is shared by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Now I realize we're all different, and each claims to be truly orthodox, but all three share many truths (e.g., bishops, priests, deacons, the Real Presence, Theotokos, sacraments/mysteries, etc.) not found in Protestantism and all three have held these truths since the beginning.

What sort of Protestant is he? Because if he is Radical Reformation then there's probably significantly more than just those three groups that hold numerous things in common in opposition to his ideas.

I wanted to juxtapose his view of orthodoxy against that which is shared by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Now I realize we're all different, and each claims to be truly orthodox, but all three share many truths (e.g., bishops, priests, deacons, the Real Presence, Theotokos, sacraments/mysteries, etc.) not found in Protestantism and all three have held these truths since the beginning.

What sort of Protestant is he? Because if he is Radical Reformation then there's probably significantly more than just those three groups that hold numerous things in common in opposition to his ideas.

Non-denominational. He's non-denominational. I know he disagrees with much more then the few examples I gave. The point I'm trying to make with him is that even if he cannot respect the authority of the Catholic Church due to the sins he has been bringing up, why throw the baby out with the bath water. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches did not have the same problems yet had the same historical teaching (well at least far closer than any Protestant to the ancient faith).

Any time the Church gets tangled up in empire, it is going to collect skeletons. I suspect the East would have collected a few more had it not been conquered.

And there are certainly current local jurisdictions that, while they aren’t killing anyone, aren’t very friendly to the non-Orthodox at the moment. The Ethiopians and some parts of Russia come to mind.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

In the Greek church, everything is still in Koine (New Testament) Greek, which is great when arguing historical continuity, but horrible when arguing pastoral issues. It's neat, but nobody understands it.

All of the Slavic churches have services in Old Church Slavonic, which is unintelligible to modern ears. Besides that, the indigenous forms of the ancient liturgical languages were eventually all made into the Russian form of Slavonic, so often it doesn't even reflect the local historical heritage, but is rather a remnant of Russian imperialism. For example, this is the case with the Serbian church.

That's not to say that in some major cities there isn't a push toward translating the liturgy into modern languages, but overall this is far from the norm and it is actively opposed by many traditionalists, including monastics.

So I guess a better idea is to have a choir singing in a dead language so that the parishioners that actually do show up every week watch the service happen as a performance, passively standing in quiet observation.

Forgive my criticisms; my long heritage of Protesting will take years to get out of my system. We're great at complaining!

In the Greek church, everything is still in Koine (New Testament) Greek, which is great when arguing historical continuity, but horrible when arguing pastoral issues. It's neat, but nobody understands it.

All of the Slavic churches have services in Old Church Slavonic, which is unintelligible to modern ears. Besides that, the indigenous forms of the ancient liturgical languages were eventually all made into the Russian form of Slavonic, so often it doesn't even reflect the local historical heritage, but is rather a remnant of Russian imperialism. For example, this is the case with the Serbian church.

That's not to say that in some major cities there isn't a push toward translating the liturgy into modern languages, but overall this is far from the norm and it is actively opposed by many traditionalists, including monastics.

So I guess a better idea is to have a choir singing in a dead language so that the parishioners that actually do show up every week watch the service happen as a performance, passively standing in quiet observation.

Forgive my criticisms; my long heritage of Protesting will take years to get out of my system. We're great at complaining!

Oh please, dear, sweet Alveus! Not that shibboleth again! Ever heard of bilingual service books? Where I live, the Russian and Greek churches have them, not just of the Liturgy, but for a number of other services, including Holy Week, Pascha, and the major feasts. Try again, my friend.

In the Greek church, everything is still in Koine (New Testament) Greek, which is great when arguing historical continuity, but horrible when arguing pastoral issues. It's neat, but nobody understands it.

All of the Slavic churches have services in Old Church Slavonic, which is unintelligible to modern ears. Besides that, the indigenous forms of the ancient liturgical languages were eventually all made into the Russian form of Slavonic, so often it doesn't even reflect the local historical heritage, but is rather a remnant of Russian imperialism. For example, this is the case with the Serbian church.

That's not to say that in some major cities there isn't a push toward translating the liturgy into modern languages, but overall this is far from the norm and it is actively opposed by many traditionalists, including monastics.

So I guess a better idea is to have a choir singing in a dead language so that the parishioners that actually do show up every week watch the service happen as a performance, passively standing in quiet observation.

Forgive my criticisms; my long heritage of Protesting will take years to get out of my system. We're great at complaining!

Speak for your own Church. In the US, on average, I'd guess that more than 50% of the Liturgy is done in English in the GOA. Greek majority is still held onto in some ethnic strongholds (e.g. NY, Chi, Bos), but in most of the country services are 40-50% Greek at most. I'll also have to echo LBK:

Ever heard of bilingual service books? Where I live, the Russian and Greek churches have them, not just of the Liturgy, but for a number of other services, including Holy Week, Pascha, and the major feasts. Try again, my friend.

Overall, I'd say you don't have a clue how things operate in the majority of the GOA. I'll leave others to comment on the other parts of your post.

I wanted to juxtapose his view of orthodoxy against that which is shared by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches. Now I realize we're all different, and each claims to be truly orthodox, but all three share many truths (e.g., bishops, priests, deacons, the Real Presence, Theotokos, sacraments/mysteries, etc.) not found in Protestantism and all three have held these truths since the beginning.

What sort of Protestant is he? Because if he is Radical Reformation then there's probably significantly more than just those three groups that hold numerous things in common in opposition to his ideas.

Non-denominational. He's non-denominational. I know he disagrees with much more then the few examples I gave. The point I'm trying to make with him is that even if he cannot respect the authority of the Catholic Church due to the sins he has been bringing up, why throw the baby out with the bath water. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches did not have the same problems yet had the same historical teaching (well at least far closer than any Protestant to the ancient faith).

My point is that a lot of other groups than just those three share many of those teachings. Anglicans, Old Catholics, and the Lutherans of the Porvoo Communion have them for the most part. The only reason ACE doesn't entirely qualify is because of Theotokos vs. Christotokos, but they certainly venerate Mary. And even other Protestants of the High Reform probably share a number of those qualities that he would criticize.

In the Greek church, everything is still in Koine (New Testament) Greek, which is great when arguing historical continuity, but horrible when arguing pastoral issues. It's neat, but nobody understands it.

All of the Slavic churches have services in Old Church Slavonic, which is unintelligible to modern ears. Besides that, the indigenous forms of the ancient liturgical languages were eventually all made into the Russian form of Slavonic, so often it doesn't even reflect the local historical heritage, but is rather a remnant of Russian imperialism. For example, this is the case with the Serbian church.

I've always been told that Greeks understand Koine to a certain extent and the same with Slavs and Church Slavonic.

Speak for your own Church. In the US, on average, I'd guess that more than 50% of the Liturgy is done in English in the GOA. Greek majority is still held onto in some ethnic strongholds (e.g. NY, Chi, Bos), but in most of the country services are 40-50% Greek at most. I'll also have to echo LBK:

Ever heard of bilingual service books? Where I live, the Russian and Greek churches have them, not just of the Liturgy, but for a number of other services, including Holy Week, Pascha, and the major feasts. Try again, my friend.

Overall, I'd say you don't have a clue how things operate in the majority of the GOA. I'll leave others to comment on the other parts of your post.

You are talking about the United States, where most Greek parishes are maybe 50% in Greek. Wow, congratulations. Considering that about 3% of the world's Orthodox Christians are in the United States, and that of those they can understand half of the service, you're not making much of a case. I'm talking about the Old World, where the people in the churches aren't holding services books with translations. They're just standing there.

[You are talking about the United States, where most Greek parishes are maybe 50% in Greek. Wow, congratulations. Considering that about 3% of the world's Orthodox Christians are in the United States, and that of those they can understand half of the service, you're not making much of a case. I'm talking about the Old World, where the people in the churches aren't holding services books with translations. They're just standing there.

I've always been told that Greeks understand Koine to a certain extent and the same with Slavs and Church Slavonic.

I went to a Greek monastery this summer in Arizona, and all of the Greek speaking Greeks I asked (about ten) didn't understand anything except for "Kyrie eleison."

Do you understand Chaucerian English?

1. English is my first language, I am familiar enough with both liturgical Greek and Church Slavonic to get by. If one is willing to learn another language, liturgical or otherwise, it can be done. It's not that hard.

2. Greeks not understanding anything other than "Kyrie eleison"?? Or, for that matter, Russians with "Gospodi pomiluy"? This is just nonsense. While the liturgical languages are indeed different enough to the spoken vernacular Greek and Russian, there is enough similarity for a much, much greater level of comprehension than just "Lord, have mercy".

3. Your analogy of Chaucerian English to modern English is wide of the mark. A better analogue is Shakespearean English with modern English. Last time I checked, Shakespeare is still being taught to teenagers in high schools, as is the poetry of John Donne. During my English classes as a fifteen-year-old many years ago, even the most philistine lads had little trouble with the language of Shakespeare or Donne. And, for those who took English in the final year of high school, The Canterbury Tales was one of the prescribed texts.

[You are talking about the United States, where most Greek parishes are maybe 50% in Greek. Wow, congratulations. Considering that about 3% of the world's Orthodox Christians are in the United States, and that of those they can understand half of the service, you're not making much of a case. I'm talking about the Old World, where the people in the churches aren't holding services books with translations. They're just standing there.

I've always been told that Greeks understand Koine to a certain extent and the same with Slavs and Church Slavonic.

I went to a Greek monastery this summer in Arizona, and all of the Greek speaking Greeks I asked (about ten) didn't understand anything except for "Kyrie eleison."

Do you understand Chaucerian English?

1. English is my first language, I am familiar enough with both liturgical Greek and Church Slavonic to get by. If one is willing to learn another language, liturgical or otherwise, it can be done. It's not that hard.

I agree. I don't know what people make such a big deal out of this.

Quote

2. Greeks not understanding anything other than "Kyrie eleison"?? Or, for that matter, Russians with "Gospodi pomiluy"? This is just nonsense. While the liturgical languages are indeed different enough to the spoken vernacular Greek and Russian, there is enough similarity for a much, much greater level of comprehension than just "Lord, have mercy".

I have heard this myth before; that no one really understands the language of the liturgy. Sure, one wouldn't find people holding a conversation in Koine where one has to construct the language for oneself, but at the Greek parish where I was received most people knew the Liturgy by heart and could talk about its meaning with apparent confidence.

Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Koine Greek is not that hard. Many words have already passed down on Modern Greek. Greeks can understand almost every single word, apart from certain strange words that you can spot only in Homer or the Fathers (sometimes, not even philologists get those). People who do not understand the words is because they're not used to Byzantine music and cannot hear them clearly.

Do not doubt the hospital's doctors and do not be harsh towards their ways.

That sound kind of clericalist.

I'm sorry, what's that?!

Militantsparrow, try convincing him that there's not only the "invisible church", but all kinds of men. Not even Jesus ever said that the Pharisees did not belong to the Church; only that they do not do as the Father has commanded them. After all, the word church in Greek means gathering.

Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Militantsparrow, try convincing him that there's not only the "invisible church", but all kinds of men. Not even Jesus ever said that the Pharisees did not belong to the Church; only that they do not do as the Father has commanded them. After all, the word church in Greek means gathering.

Every organization on the earth containing humans had/has issues. I think one of Orthodoxy's ongoing skeletons is nationalism. IMO, choosing a religion has to be about what it actually teaches, period, otherwise there is no 'good' one.

Every organization on the earth containing humans had/has issues. I think one of Orthodoxy's ongoing skeletons is nationalism. IMO, choosing a religion has to be about what it actually teaches, period, otherwise there is no 'good' one.

But how can you trust that what they teach is true? Don't you have to trust the teaching authority? If I instinctively knew every dogma, I wouldn't need a Church to pass down the teachings of our Lord.

As a Kid i never took the time to stop and listen/learn ,the Old Church Slavonic ,that's why i didn't care for it...As i grew, i started to pay attention ,and developed a appreciation and understanding for it...I still don't know the meaning of some words, that are mentioned in the old Slavonic Liturgy,But most of it is pretty darn close to Serbian and other Slavic tongues...

I have Ikona of Christ Hanging over my dinning room table ,the Lord Is holding the open Gospel written in Old Church Slavonic,I studied the words on it and, managed to read what it say's ..

Greater Love has No Man ,than to lay down his own life for his fellow man....

But how can you trust that what they teach is true? Don't you have to trust the teaching authority?

Not exactly. First, you put your trust to history and to the faith and sacrifice of the Apostles. Then, you get to see which books are true and which are not (this is where you decide whether the Fathers are liars or trustworthy historians). Then, you have the Church and the Bible right in front of you; you check whose arguements are more convicing.

Still, we do show blind trust to our Saints and this is because we yet have to live their Divine experiences for ourselves.In the same way, we blindly trust Science or the fact that our world is not the Matrix...

Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.

Speaking of skeletons, I think we should mention anti-Semitism of some very highly positioned Orthodox bishops, for example bishop +ANTONIY (Khrapovitsky) in Russia (1863-1936), who wrote literally the following: "Смысл и направления Протоколов Сионских мудрецов во многих отношениях соответствуют учению и мировоззрению мирового еврейства... и, как собственно показала русская революция, действия и устремления еврейства часто вполне соответствуют содержанию так называемых Протоколов Сионских мудрецов." (http://www.hrono.info/biograf/bio_a/antoni_hrap.html). (Translation: "The meaning and the direction of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, in many respects, consistent with the teaching and the vision of the world of the global Jewry.. as the Russian revolution showed, the actions and the goals of Jewry often correspond very precisely to the content of these Protocols.") The published list of members of the so-called "Black Hundred" (official name "The Union of Russian People," an openly Judophobic organization) (http://www.hrono.info/biograf/bio_ch/cherno100.php) includes dozens of names of Orthodox priests, bishops, archbishops and metropolitans like +AGATHANGEL, Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Rostov (http://www.hrono.info/biograf/bio_a/agafangel.html), +ALEKSIY, Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal (http://www.hrono.info/biograf/alexi_d.html) and numerous others.

Every organization on the earth containing humans had/has issues. I think one of Orthodoxy's ongoing skeletons is nationalism. IMO, choosing a religion has to be about what it actually teaches, period, otherwise there is no 'good' one.

But how can you trust that what they teach is true? Don't you have to trust the teaching authority? If I instinctively knew every dogma, I wouldn't need a Church to pass down the teachings of our Lord.

People who do not have access to the Church exempted, the faith isn't a head game; the life that only the Church can provide through her liturgy and sacraments is the salvific life. It's like reading the PI sheet that comes with prescriptions without taking the pills, even though the doctor can be a weirdo sometimes. This doctor's Superior is still Jesus Christ.

Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul